So, 1,100 people sign a statement. What were the key words you used to come up with that one, Mental?
Anyway. Perhaps Mental can break this statement down for us:
We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others. The question is what is that boundary? Does the information content in living things exceed that boundary? Darwinists have never faced those questions. They’ve never asked scientifically, can random mutation and natural selection generate the information content in living things.
- Dr. Michael Egnor professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook
So what I’m hearing, correct me if I’m wrong, is that most folks here consider themselves to be Darwinists and would not be willing to sign on to this list:
I’m assuming this list is legit even though put up by discovery.org. ...
You just assumed, without checking what you were posting?
...The statement has been criticized for being misleading and ambiguous, using terms with multiple meanings such as "Darwinism", which can refer specifically to natural selection or informally to evolution in general,[7] and presenting a straw man fallacy with its claim that random mutations and natural selection are insufficient to account for the complexity of life, when standard evolutionary theory involves other factors such as gene flow, genetic recombination, genetic drift and endosymbiosis.[8][9]
Scientists and educators have noted that its signatories, who include historians and philosophers of science as well as scientists, were a minuscule fraction of the numbers of scientists and engineers qualified to sign it.[8]
Intelligent design has failed to produce scientific research, and been rejected by the scientific community,[8] including many leading scientific organizations.[10][11]
The statement in the document has also been criticized as being phrased to represent a diverse range of opinions, set in a context which gives it a misleading spin to confuse the public.[7]
The listed affiliations and areas of expertise of the signatories have also been criticized.[1][12]
I'd bet my house that less than 1% of those signatories could accurately describe the differences between Darwinism, and Modern Synthesis without having to look it up.
That they consistently choose the former in their propaganda fits in nicely with the overarching ID proponent methods.
Excellent point. Both are examples of bad science and bad theology.
So what I’m hearing, correct me if I’m wrong, is that most folks here consider themselves to be Darwinists and would not be willing to sign on to this list:
I’m assuming this list is legit even though put up by discovery.org.
Regards,
MG
No one is a “Darwinist.” It’s a made up term used by that portion of theists who can’t get it through their thick skulls that the first proponent of a scientific theory is not viewed by those who respect science as the equivalent of a prophet in religion.
I have no idea what you mean by legit beyond “something MG 2.0 agrees with.” Is it more or less legit than “Project Steve?”
I'd bet my house that less than 1% of those signatories could accurately describe the differences between Darwinism, and Modern Synthesis without having to look it up.
That they consistently choose the former in their propaganda fits in nicely with the overarching ID proponent methods.
So what I’m hearing, correct me if I’m wrong, is that most folks here consider themselves to be Darwinists and would not be willing to sign on to this list:
I’m assuming this list is legit even though put up by discovery.org.
Regards,
MG
No one is a “Darwinist.” It’s a made up term used by that portion of theists who can’t get it through their thick skulls that the first proponent of a scientific theory is not viewed by those who respect science as the equivalent of a prophet in religion.
I have no idea what you mean by legit beyond “something MG 2.0 agrees with.” Is it more or less legit than “Project Steve?”
No one is a “Darwinist.” It’s a made up term used by that portion of theists who can’t get it through their thick skulls that the first proponent of a scientific theory is not viewed by those who respect science as the equivalent of a prophet in religion.
I have no idea what you mean by legit beyond “something MG 2.0 agrees with.” Is it more or less legit than “Project Steve?”
Out of interest what are your credentials? Do they supersede those that have signed the list?
Regards,
MG
Are you sure you want to play the appeal to authority game? Would you stop making bad arguments if the quantity and qualifications of those who recognize the evolution of species through natural selection is strongly supported though evidence while ID is not vastly outnumbers and outweighs the lists you have put forward? Or would that not impact your thinking at all?
I'd bet my house that less than 1% of those signatories could accurately describe the differences between Darwinism, and Modern Synthesis without having to look it up.
That they consistently choose the former in their propaganda fits in nicely with the overarching ID proponent methods.
Out of interest, what are your credentials?
Regards,
MG
Occasional spurts of motivation to read current source material.
Occasional being the operative term.
Although, I do wish I had an advanced degree in in Electrical Engineering, or Water Resource Engineering, or Experimental Physics, or Nutrition, since those seems to hold sway.
No one is a “Darwinist.” It’s a made up term used by that portion of theists who can’t get it through their thick skulls that the first proponent of a scientific theory is not viewed by those who respect science as the equivalent of a prophet in religion.
I have no idea what you mean by legit beyond “something MG 2.0 agrees with.” Is it more or less legit than “Project Steve?”
Out of interest what are your credentials? Do they supersede those that have signed the list?
Regards,
MG
LOL!!!! Did you find a copy of the dishonest religious extremist handbook circa 1990? I’ve followed the efforts of extremist religious folks to sneak god into science class for 40 years. You didn’t click the link to Project Steve, did you? Use the common sense that you claim your God gave you and understand the difference between a stunt and a valid argument.
It doesn’t matter how many homeopaths sign a letter saying that homeopathy is medicine — it isn’t. That’s based on evidence, not arguments from ignorance or personal incredulity.
The Discovery Institute is a theistic propaganda mill, not a scientific organization. They’ve put out so much dishonest crap, I’d wouldn’t trust anything they say without independent verification.
I agree with you on one thing though: this thread has been very educational… When it comes to the pretense that your just a reasonable, middle of the road guy who respects science, you’ve shot yourself in both feet. Multiple times.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
The list has only grown since this article was published.
It isn’t surprising that the list would cause a fair amount of consternation.
Regards,
MG
Do you even read what you post? That article is a mess. And no the list isn't causing 'consternation.' It is, however, if you had noticed from RI's link, causing this:
...a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution", such as ... the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.
The list pokes fun at such endeavors while making it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!"
